Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Increase in Coronavirus Deaths

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Metryll
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Wait, you honestly believe that the Chinese were not suppressing evidence?
    Until a clear evidence of such behavior is set, I'll side with all CDC and Health organization which don't support this claim. Unlike you they don't consider their beliefs as facts.

    A respected Chinese virologist who says she did some of the earliest research into COVID-19 last year has accused Beijing of lying about when it learned of the deadly virus and engaging in an extensive cover-up of her work, according to a new report.

    In a new interview with Fox News, Dr. Li-Meng Yan says her supervisors at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, a reference laboratory for the World Health Organization, silenced her when she sounded the alarm about human-to-human transmission in December last year.


    https://nypost.com/2020/07/10/chines...d-19-cover-up/
    #1 AFAIK Hong Kong School of Public Health is not a WHO reference laboratory. At least it is not listed as a member of GISRS

    https://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_...flabs/list/en/

    #2 COVID-19 designation as well SRAS-Cov2 virus designation date of February 11, 2020. Genome was not available before mid January. No one knew what the new virus was in December and certainly not its mode of transmission.

    So either this person posses some divination power or she don't give all informations about his warning and why it was not followed.

    Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls on the Chinese authorities to urgently clarify the situation of Dr. Ai Fen, a whistleblower who has been unreachable for the past two weeks after giving interviews to the media in which she criticized Beijing’s censorship of information about the coronavirus epidemic.

    https://rsf.org/en/news/whistleblowi...rus-censorship

    Armed with the photo of a test, Li spoke about the ongoing epidemic for the first time on 30 December with former faculty of medicine students in a private discussion group on the messaging service WeChat. The alarm was sounded. His messages were shared very widely on the microblogging website Weibo.

    But they were also seen by the authorities. Two days later, on 1 January, Li and seven other doctors were questioned. Li was grilled for several hours and, on 3 January, the police forced him to sign a statement recognizing that he had “spread false rumours.”

    https://rsf.org/en/news/coronavirus-...china-silenced
    Would you read now my post, since you don't seem to have, you'll dicover that I stated several times that China most likely lied about epidemy true scale. Surprise..

    "no clear evidence" means there is no evidence suggesting human to human transmission in this case.
    And yet there was "evidence" as already repeatedly established.

    Taiwan gave evidence that suggested human to human transmission. an honest investigatoir would not ignore that information and say "no clear evidence". Sorry, but there was evidence to suggest humna to human was happening, soi when they say "no clear evidence" they are ignoring what the taiwanese told them.

    "No clear evidence hormone treatment in early pregnancy helps prevent miscarriage

    ....

    Further research is needed before we know whether progesterone could benefit some women with recurrent miscarriages."

    https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-an...t-miscarriage/

    It's exactly what have been said to you : No clear evidence mean uncertainty.

    Science : 1
    Law : 0

    You'll note that the respected viroligist found evidence of human to human transmission last december.
    Found evidence ? Really ? And how she got this result ? Tea leafs, tarot cards or good old crystal ball ?

    Anyway, I'm tired of posting the exact same information repeatedly.
    Well, I warned you that trying to search about non existant fact can be quite time consumming...

    The WHO's error (lie) may have cost thousands of lives and its credibility.
    You can pretend I'm the only one who thinks this but that wouldn't be true.
    Oh I'm certain that you're not the only believing that they know what they speak of by using skill unrelated to the field in use while being wrong...


    But at least the WHO was satisfied with CHina's response.
    It was China which warned WHO about the new virus. You did not knew ?

    You've convinced me though.
    If it was the case you would have recognized that what you believe about WHO, Science and how scientists work was basically wrong. But to be honest I'll not keep my breathe on this hypotetical event.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Strange how that gets forgotten when some claim that Trump didn't act soon enough or effectively enough, etc.

    Especially when during first critical two months PRChina sat on essential data and mis-reported numbers of cases, and other crucial information; much as they have continued to do up to this date.
    Did you miss the fact that Trump was actually talking about a Democratic manufactured "hoax" in February and a month after WHO clarified that there were human to human transmissions?

    I even posted the video in another thread

    Same with Pence who again in February was praising China's unprecedented transparency. I posted that video too in this thread

    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...57#post5207657
    Last edited by pamak; 15 Jul 20, 16:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Only for those who want to be imprecise with the document they read.

    "No clear evidence" means that there is no evidence that establishes a clear connection to the claim.


    When one deals with a novel virus it is irrational to demand the quick establishment of clear connections to any claim without having debates and initial reservations. The WHO DID talk about human to human transmission about a week after it mentioned that there was no "clear evidence" of human to human transmission." Such period does not show any deception from the WHO. It simply reflects the natural ambiguity that existed at the time which demanded farther investigation before making a more definite statement about the virus' characteristics
    Strange how that gets forgotten when some claim that Trump didn't act soon enough or effectively enough, etc.

    Especially when during first critical two months PRChina sat on essential data and mis-reported numbers of cases, and other crucial information; much as they have continued to do up to this date.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post





    "no clear evidence" means there is no evidence suggesting human to human transmission in this case.
    And yet there was "evidence" as already repeatedly established...
    Only for those who want to be imprecise with the document they read.

    "No clear evidence" means that there is no evidence that establishes a clear connection to the claim that there is human to human transmission.


    When one deals with a novel virus it is irrational to demand the quick establishment of clear connections to any claim without having debates and initial reservations. The WHO DID talk about human to human transmission about a week after it mentioned that there was no "clear evidence" of human to human transmission." Such period does not show any deception from the WHO. It simply reflects the natural ambiguity that existed at the time which demanded farther investigation before making a more definite statement about the virus' characteristics.

    Also, when you make claims against WHO based on its statements you must present the actual facts regarding these statements and not trying to insert your interpretations of what WHO said. And you like it or not, the WHO talked about "no clear evidence" and did not simply ay "no evidence" as you claimed initially.


    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    ..

    ... It was a week later that the WHO said there was "no evidence" of human to human transmission. As such, the WHO "knew of should have known" that saying there was "no evidence" was a false statement...

    The only false statement I see here is yours regarding what WHO said...
    Last edited by pamak; 15 Jul 20, 16:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    FOX 35 INVESTIGATES: Florida Department of Health says some labs have not reported negative COVID-19 results

    ....
    ORLANDO, Fla. - After FOX 35 News noticed errors in the state's report on positivity rates, the Florida Department of Health said that some laboratories have not been reporting negative test result data to the state.

    Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate, which means every single person tested was positive. Other labs had very high positivity rates. FOX 35 News found that testing sites like one local Centra Care reported that 83 people were tested and all tested positive. Then, NCF Diagnostics in Alachua reported 88 percent of tests were positive.
    How could that be? FOX 35 News investigated these astronomical numbers, contacting every local location mentioned in the report.

    The report showed that Orlando Health had a 98 percent positivity rate. However, when FOX 35 News contacted the hospital, they confirmed errors in the report. Orlando Health's positivity rate is only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as in the report.

    The report also showed that the Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center had a positivity rate of 76 percent. A spokesperson for the VA told FOX 35 News on Tuesday that this does not reflect their numbers and that the positivity rate for the center is actually 6 percent.

    FOX 35 News went on to speak with the Florida Department of Health on Tuesday. They confirmed that although private and public laboratories are required to report positive and negative results to the state immediately, some have not. Specifically, they said that some smaller, private labs were not reporting negative test result data to the state.
    ...
    https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fo...vid-19-results



    Also reported here...
    https://www.theblaze.com/news/florid...reaking%20News

    Minor details, who needs the negative part of the test numbers ???

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    ^^^^^^ Remember, minds(/positions) of participants are seldom changed in these exchanges of posts on a thread; but often there are far more reading than posting and those 'silent' readers can be more flexible in adjusting their positions based on information provided since they don't have a "screen face" to save.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Metryll View Post

    WHO did not ignored, it is actually the reverse : they did included Taiwan CDC observation.



    I agree this YOUR error



    This is not what the bold part state. Actually it state the opposite : they write "conclusively", you read "suggesting". The trick probably work before a court otherwise you'd have used it. Before people with a scientific background its a quite hazardous path to follow.

    The seed of your error :



    No. As Pamak has already stated WHO declared that there was "no clear evidence of human to human".

    The reason for your error.



    Medicine is part of Science not Law. 10 = 2.

    Your error :



    No, in Science "no clear evidence" does not mean "no evidence". It mean "no certainty of evidence". WHO has never denied that there was human to human transmission. It stated that it did not knew for sure that there was (or not), which is entirely coherent with Taiwan CDC observation.



    Which evidence ? There were very few by January. Genome was not sequenced before mid January and made available for all scientists.

    Wait, you honestly believe that the Chinese were not suppressing evidence?

    A respected Chinese virologist who says she did some of the earliest research into COVID-19 last year has accused Beijing of lying about when it learned of the deadly virus and engaging in an extensive cover-up of her work, according to a new report.

    In a new interview with Fox News, Dr. Li-Meng Yan says her supervisors at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, a reference laboratory for the World Health Organization, silenced her when she sounded the alarm about human-to-human transmission in December last year.


    https://nypost.com/2020/07/10/chines...d-19-cover-up/


    Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls on the Chinese authorities to urgently clarify the situation of Dr. Ai Fen, a whistleblower who has been unreachable for the past two weeks after giving interviews to the media in which she criticized Beijing’s censorship of information about the coronavirus epidemic.


    https://rsf.org/en/news/whistleblowi...rus-censorship

    Armed with the photo of a test, Li spoke about the ongoing epidemic for the first time on 30 December with former faculty of medicine students in a private discussion group on the messaging service WeChat. The alarm was sounded. His messages were shared very widely on the microblogging website Weibo.



    But they were also seen by the authorities. Two days later, on 1 January, Li and seven other doctors were questioned. Li was grilled for several hours and, on 3 January, the police forced him to sign a statement recognizing that he had “spread false rumours.”



    https://rsf.org/en/news/coronavirus-...china-silenced


    "no clear evidence" means there is no evidence suggesting human to human transmission in this case.
    And yet there was "evidence" as already repeatedly established.

    Taiwan gave evidence that suggested human to human transmission. an honest investigatoir would not ignore that information and say "no clear evidence". Sorry, but there was evidence to suggest humna to human was happening, soi when they say "no clear evidence" they are ignoring what the taiwanese told them.

    You'll note that the respected viroligist found evidence of human to human transmission last december.

    Anyway, I'm tired of posting the exact same information repeatedly.
    The WHO's error (lie) may have cost thousands of lives and its credibility.
    You can pretend I'm the only one who thinks this but that wouldn't be true.

    OMG look:

    The WHO’s leadership has come under unprecedented scrutiny during the pandemic for giving the impression that it has been swayed by, and beholden to, China. In late January, in the early days of the outbreak, the WHO’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, heaped unqualified praise on China’s COVID-19 policy measures and the leadership of Xi Jinping. He commended the “seriousness” with which China was taking the outbreak, “the commitment from top leadership, and the transparency they have demonstrated”.

    But non-transparency and censorship are pervasive in all levels of China’s system of government. Tedros had been warned by his aides of the potential repercussions of his effusive praise of China, but reportedly ignored them. It appears the WHO also took the initial information and data about the epidemic transmitted to it by China at face value.
    https://theconversation.com/the-worl...inquiry-138959

    Australia is one of the most recent countries to raise doubts about how China handled the outbreak, and Prime Minister Marise Payne has called for a national investigation into the virus' origins. Appearing on ABC television in Australia, Payne said her concerns about China's transparency were at "a very high point."
    https://www.newsweek.com/australia-b...ntries-1498945

    But at least the WHO was satisfied with CHina's response.

    You've convinced me though. I will pretend away contrary information too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    So ignoring medical information from Taiwan isn't political?
    WHO did not ignored, it is actually the reverse : they did included Taiwan CDC observation.

    Sorry for MY error.
    I agree this YOUR error

    Taiwan's explanation of the email.
    <snip> However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.

    Yes, Taiwan asked for more information and indicated there was evidence suggesting human to human transmission.
    This is not what the bold part state. Actually it state the opposite : they write "conclusively", you read "suggesting". The trick probably work before a court otherwise you'd have used it. Before people with a scientific background its a quite hazardous path to follow.

    The seed of your error :

    The WHO ignored that and said "no evidence of human to human".
    That is inconsistent with what they already knew from the Taiwan CDC.
    No. As Pamak has already stated WHO declared that there was "no clear evidence of human to human".

    The reason for your error.

    MY expertise isn't medicine, it is law, I understand the concept of "evidence" and the concept of "knew or should have known".
    Medicine is part of Science not Law. 10 = 2.

    Your error :

    The WHO had "evidence" from Taiwan and "knew or should have known" that they could not honestly say there was "no evidence" of human to human transmission.
    No, in Science "no clear evidence" does not mean "no evidence". It mean "no certainty of evidence". WHO has never denied that there was human to human transmission. It stated that it did not knew for sure that there was (or not), which is entirely coherent with Taiwan CDC observation.

    The WHO certainly can make an error. But you might want to look at the praise the WHO had for the chinese in late jaunary even though the chinese were suppressing every bit of evidence they could find.
    That praise would be a "lie".
    Which evidence ? There were very few by January. Genome was not sequenced before mid January and made available for all scientists.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    So ignoring medical information from Taiwan isn't political?
    Sorry for MY error.

    Taiwan's explanation of the email.
    Owing to its experience with the SARS epidemic in 2003, Taiwan vigilantly kept track of information about the new outbreak. On December 31, 2019, Taiwan sent an email to the International Health Regulations (IHR) focal point under the World Health Organization (WHO), informing WHO of its understanding of the disease and also requesting further information from WHO. Given the lack of clarity at the time, as well as the many rumors that were circulating, Taiwan’s aim was to ensure that all relevant parties remained alert, especially since the outbreak occurred just before the Lunar New Year holiday, which typically sees tremendous amounts of travel. To be prudent, in the email we took pains to refer to atypical pneumonia, and specifically noted that patients had been isolated for treatment. Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease. However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.
    https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/D...Ouw?typeid=158

    Yes, Taiwan asked for more information and indicated there was evidence suggesting human to human transmission.
    The WHO ignored that and said "no evidence of human to human".
    That is inconsistent with what they already knew from the Taiwan CDC.

    MY expertise isn't medicine, it is law, I understand the concept of "evidence" and the concept of "knew or should have known".

    The WHO had "evidence" from Taiwan and "knew or should have known" that they could not honestly say there was "no evidence" of human to human transmission.


    The WHO certainly can make an error. But you might want to look at the praise the WHO had for the chinese in late jaunary even though the chinese were suppressing every bit of evidence they could find.
    That praise would be a "lie".
    If your expertise is really law then you should be able to make the distinction between the claims "there is no evidence of human to human transmission" and "there is no CLEAR evidence of human to human transmission" which is what the WHO said and which is consistent also with Taiwan's statements.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Metryll View Post

    WHO can make error, but lying that is providing purposely false information is impossible. This is due on how WHO operate. A lie imply that all CDC and Health organization around the world did lie as well.



    So this is not several experts but a single one who clearly stated that she expressed his opinion. Since she was also part of decision process at WHO she, in same time, lied and said the truth.



    Did China lied about scale ? Most likely. Has WHO lied by advice given to Members States ? No. So far I've asked you this question may times but never got an answer : Why do others Members States don't react like USA if they have been lied ?



    Once again WHO, based on previous events asserted that travel ban was of limited effects. This is not downpling anything, the same advice had been issued about the last Ebola crisis.



    As usual some people here either don't read or have short memory. Taiwan CDC never warned about human to human transmission but asked WHO for more information. The mail is available on Taiwan CDC website and I've already posted it some months ago.



    The problem with person with limited knowledge about a field, here Science, is that they believe that everything is political. Hence in this case with WHO they simply ignore how decision are taken and take stance based only on a part of events. For the nth time, the process to issue advice in WHO is separate of Members States political game within WHO.

    And until you acknowledge this fact, you're bound to make the same errors, again and again...
    So ignoring medical information from Taiwan isn't political?
    Sorry for MY error.

    Taiwan's explanation of the email.
    Owing to its experience with the SARS epidemic in 2003, Taiwan vigilantly kept track of information about the new outbreak. On December 31, 2019, Taiwan sent an email to the International Health Regulations (IHR) focal point under the World Health Organization (WHO), informing WHO of its understanding of the disease and also requesting further information from WHO. Given the lack of clarity at the time, as well as the many rumors that were circulating, Taiwan’s aim was to ensure that all relevant parties remained alert, especially since the outbreak occurred just before the Lunar New Year holiday, which typically sees tremendous amounts of travel. To be prudent, in the email we took pains to refer to atypical pneumonia, and specifically noted that patients had been isolated for treatment. Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease. However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.
    https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/D...Ouw?typeid=158

    Yes, Taiwan asked for more information and indicated there was evidence suggesting human to human transmission.
    The WHO ignored that and said "no evidence of human to human".
    That is inconsistent with what they already knew from the Taiwan CDC.

    MY expertise isn't medicine, it is law, I understand the concept of "evidence" and the concept of "knew or should have known".

    The WHO had "evidence" from Taiwan and "knew or should have known" that they could not honestly say there was "no evidence" of human to human transmission.

    The WHO certainly can make an error. But you might want to look at the praise the WHO had for the chinese in late jaunary even though the chinese were suppressing every bit of evidence they could find.
    That praise would be a "lie".

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    I was unaware that the WHO was incapable of sin. The US government can lie, the Chinese absolutely can lie, but not the WHO.
    WHO can make error, but lying that is providing purposely false information is impossible. This is due on how WHO operate. A lie imply that all CDC and Health organization around the world did lie as well.

    I did provide the name and a link of the WHO’s own expert in an earlier . It addressed the 1/14 tweet. See my post #46
    So this is not several experts but a single one who clearly stated that she expressed his opinion. Since she was also part of decision process at WHO she, in same time, lied and said the truth.

    Never downplayed the threat?
    In an article defending the WHO, Time said:

    In January, Tedros praised “China’s commitment to transparency and to supporting other countries. In many ways, China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.” This despite credible charges that China hid the scale of the virus and punished Chinese doctors who publicly warned that risks were growing.
    https://time.com/5836602/world-healt...n-coronavirus/
    Did China lied about scale ? Most likely. Has WHO lied by advice given to Members States ? No. So far I've asked you this question may times but never got an answer : Why do others Members States don't react like USA if they have been lied ?

    The WHO downplayed the threat when it issued the 1?14 tweet and condemned trump’s travel ban.
    That was easy.
    Once again WHO, based on previous events asserted that travel ban was of limited effects. This is not downpling anything, the same advice had been issued about the last Ebola crisis.

    Also:
    Though the organization declared the virus a global health emergency in January, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus didn’t begin characterizing it as a pandemic until March 11, when the virus had already been confirmed in at least 114 countries.

    and mentioned in the above article is how the WHO submits to China’s demands that Taiwan be ignored. The WHO submits to this political demand and ignores the health of the 24 million people in Taiwan and refused to consider Taiwan’s warnings.

    The head of the WHO even stormed out of an interview when just asked about Taiwan.
    As usual some people here either don't read or have short memory. Taiwan CDC never warned about human to human transmission but asked WHO for more information. The mail is available on Taiwan CDC website and I've already posted it some months ago.

    Sure sounds like politics play an important role In an organization allegedly just concerned with our health.
    The problem with person with limited knowledge about a field, here Science, is that they believe that everything is political. Hence in this case with WHO they simply ignore how decision are taken and take stance based only on a part of events. For the nth time, the process to issue advice in WHO is separate of Members States political game within WHO.

    And until you acknowledge this fact, you're bound to make the same errors, again and again...

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    On waves, just because some, or one in particular came in waves does not mean all do or Covid will. There is in fact no evidence Covid will. Covid unlike Spanish flu is not an influenza virus, it is not flu. Covid 1 hasn't returned. There is evidence of long lasting immunity to SARS 1, immune responses are still generated despite the virus largely disappearing in 2003.

    If New York does not have a high level of immunity then how has there been no recurrence of infections?

    According to Prof Gupta (head of epidemiology at Oxford university) having Covid continue at a low back ground level as it now is in most of Europe is probably best as it will mean that there will always be a significant level of immunity in the population and thus no epidemics.
    This is not an argument for making a claim that we (or the Swedes) have achieved herd immunity. My point was to show that it is perfectly possible to have BOTH a temporary reduction of deaths and a condition in which there is no such thing as "herd immunity" and the population remains vulnerable to the same virus.

    And actually, even if you accept the T-cell positive effect, there is evidence that this CV can come with a second wave. Read again the article I posted:

    We know people make robust and sometimes long-lasting T cell responses to cold causing coronaviruses.
    However important the T cell response may be in clearing infection, it is clear that it does not prevent reinfection,
    which occurs regularly with the more common coronaviruses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Can we agree that there is not any claim that any T-cell effect has brought immunity in Sweden?
    The whole conversation started while we were talking about "herd immunity" That there is some effect of t cells on immunity is not debated. Eve the article I cited mentions that " The body's T cell response may also be an important factor for immunity...", but an effect does not equate with "herd immunity"

    And we also do not argue regarding if there must be "something" that causes the drop of death and cases across Europe and East Asia. We are debating if it is "herd immunity" what causes now this drop. And it is irresponsible to talk that it is herd immunity that causes sc drop when there are perfectly logical ways to explain possible causes for such drop and enough counter evidence to show that we have not developed herd immunity.

    As you know deaths from viruses, including from the flu come in waves, and explaining a drop that you see during the last month is in no way evidence of herd immunity.
    On waves, just because some, or one in particular came in waves does not mean all do or Covid will. There is in fact no evidence Covid will. Covid unlike Spanish flu is not an influenza virus, it is not flu. Covid 1 hasn't returned. There is evidence of long lasting immunity to SARS 1, immune responses are still generated despite the virus largely disappearing in 2003.

    If New York does not have a high level of immunity then how has there been no recurrence of infections?

    According to Prof Gupta (head of epidemiology at Oxford university) having Covid continue at a low back ground level as it now is in most of Europe is probably best as it will mean that there will always be a significant level of immunity in the population and thus no epidemics.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    As I said the T cell effect is the opinion of the Immunologists, physicians, epidemiologists etc at the Karolinska institute in Sweden. The statistician (who is a professor at UCL who routinely works with disease spread so not simply any statistician) was simply saying that there most be an effect that is causing the deaths and cases across Europe and East Asia to drop as the number testing positive antibodies is not sufficient on its own to justify it. Sweden as you know has like the UK and elsewhere in Europe seen its deaths plummet despite having a much milder lockdown than most. If there was no significant immunity then a country Sweden would have a much higher level of deaths.
    The T-cell effect identified by the Swedes is a reaction against Covid specifically. Other studies have identified a T cell response in individuals with no prior exposure to Covid due to cross immunity with other Coruna viruses. This is one of the speculated reasons why children are so resistant to Covid, they get colds.

    https://unherd.com/thepost/swedish-d...-19-in-sweden/

    The Swedes explain their research in the above interview.

    There is evidence for large scale immunity in places like New York both through the anti body tests and through evidence of what is happening on the ground. There is no uptick in New York deaths and the shape of its graph is very different from California's or Florida's despite a gradual relaxation of restrictions.

    Can we agree that there is not any claim that any T-cell effect has brought immunity in Sweden?

    The whole conversation started while we were talking about "herd immunity" That there is some effect of t cells on immunity is not debated. Eve the article I cited mentions that " The body's T cell response may also be an important factor for immunity...", but a positive effect does not equate with "herd immunity"

    And we also do not argue regarding if there must be "something" that causes the drop of death and cases across Europe and East Asia. We are debating if it is "herd immunity" what causes now this drop. And it is irresponsible to talk that it is herd immunity that causes sc drop when there are perfectly logical ways to explain possible causes for such drop and enough counter evidence to show that we have not developed herd immunity.

    As you know deaths from viruses, including from the flu come in waves (usually two per year for the flu), and explaining a drop that you see during the last month is in no way evidence of herd immunity.

    Last edited by pamak; 14 Jul 20, 20:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I am not interested in the interpretation of the studies by a statistician. Not even the Swedes make such claim (herd immunity) for Stockholm as I showed in my link! I am more interested from hearing the experts on the field. And what I hear from them, including with respect to T-cells is not even close to the claim that we have achieved her immunity.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/13/opini...ine/index.html

    We're wasting time talking about herd immunity


    Excerpts

    While SARS and MERS are the coronaviruses that grab the headlines, there are four other mostly unknown coronaviruses that are much more common: 229E, HKU1, NL63 and OC43. What we know from 60 years of research into these viruses is that they come back year after year and reinfect the same people -- over and over again.

    Earlier studies showed that the very same strain of a coronavirus that causes a cold one year can do so again the following year. Unlike with flu viruses, which mutate frequently and often infect us with new strains each year, the coronavirus need not change to reinfect. Recent data suggests that SARS-CoV-2 follows the same pattern. Following infection and recovery, all antibodies to the virus begin to fade quickly, including those which may be protective.

    The body's T cell response may also be an important factor for immunity, but it won't be the answer. T cells help our immune system by killing off infected cells and activating other immune cells to fight off the infection. We know people make robust and sometimes long-lasting T cell responses to cold causing coronaviruses.
    However important the T cell response may be in clearing infection, it is clear that it does not prevent reinfection,
    which occurs regularly with the more common coronaviruses.

    Here is the author's bio

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Haseltine

    William A. Haseltine (born October 17, 1944) is an American scientist, businessman, author, and philanthropist. He is known for his groundbreaking work on HIV/AIDS and the human genome. Haseltine was a professor at Harvard Medical School where he founded two research departments on cancer and HIV/AIDS. Haseltine is a founder of several biotechnology companies including Cambridge Biosciences, The Virus Research Institute, ProScript, LeukoSite, Dendreon, Diversa, X-VAX, and Demetrix. He was a founder chairman and CEO of Human Genome Sciences, a company that pioneered the application of genomics to drug discovery. He is the president of the Haseltine Foundation for Science and the Arts and is the founder, chairman, and president of ACCESS Health International, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to improving access to high-quality health worldwide. He was listed by Time Magazine as one of the world's 25 most influential business people in 2001 and one of the 100 most influential leaders in biotechnology[1] by Scientific American in 2015.

    I will take his opinion anytime over the opinion of a statistician, and especially over the opinion of a statistician who gives clinical answers about the big variation of infections among countries by introducing novel terms like "immunological dark matter." Immunologists should be the people who talk about any matter related to the interpretation of statistical observations.
    As I said the T cell effect is the opinion of the Immunologists, physicians, epidemiologists etc at the Karolinska institute in Sweden. The statistician (who is a professor at UCL who routinely works with disease spread so not simply any statistician) was simply saying that there most be an effect that is causing the deaths and cases across Europe and East Asia to drop as the number testing positive antibodies is not sufficient on its own to justify it. Sweden as you know has like the UK and elsewhere in Europe seen its deaths plummet despite having a much milder lockdown than most. If there was no significant immunity then a country Sweden would have a much higher level of deaths.
    The T-cell effect identified by the Swedes is a reaction against Covid specifically. Other studies have identified a T cell response in individuals with no prior exposure to Covid due to cross immunity with other Coruna viruses. This is one of the speculated reasons why children are so resistant to Covid, they get colds.

    https://unherd.com/thepost/swedish-d...-19-in-sweden/

    The Swedes explain their research in the above interview.

    There is evidence for large scale immunity in places like New York both through the anti body tests and through evidence of what is happening on the ground. There is no uptick in New York deaths and the shape of its graph is very different from California's or Florida's despite a gradual relaxation of restrictions.


    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X